The Cows of Politics

A lot of folks are throwing around the word "socialism" - everywhere these days - and they don't seem to have a grip on what it means. It's a word that stirs emotions in people, but you all probably know by now that I find emotional pleas to be a crutch when facts will do much more. Neither candidate is promoting "public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources" (definition of socialism). (Although buying mortgages, like some politicians suggest on both sides, seems to be on the edge of this.) Anyway, to my knowledge, no candidate ever has. Or, another good definition: "social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

So I'm going to post this...it brings me back to high school, when I still thought it was funny. I bet you've seen it, but read it again, it's a good time.



Politics explained with two cow analogy:

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Summary: Government is bull. Don't have a cow.

Thanks for the post. I agree that socialism is thrown around too much without it being understood.

I find it ironic that in the past there has been a call for government staying out of the way of business so all could prosper with a 'trickle-down' effect, and now, because of some major screw ups and greed from people making a hell of a lot of money, businesses are being bailed out to the tune that they are by the US federal government and many European governments.

Seems they swing both ways to me; 'government should stay the hell away until we need the help because we screwed up' seems to be the attitude. But if someone mentions universal healthcare that could have wide reaching benefits, it is dubbed as the evil 'socialism'.

If you are worried about Socialism, look at some countries like Sweden and Finland who have free university, universal health care, and are still ranked by the world economic forum as some of the most competitive countries in the world. Yes their taxes are higher, but so is their life expectancy and quality of life. It is a trade off; some countries and people are fine with that, but it doesn't mean they are a bunch of goose stepping Commies!

That's two posts about politics in one night for me; time to get back to the golf

Actually a cooperative effort or agreement of any kind among a group of individuals aimed at improving the quality of life in a 'society' is 'socialist' including the protecting of private property and national defense and also building transportation infrastructure, school systems, energy infrastructures, etc...

No, you are right in the technical definition of an act being socialist. I was referring to the more political definition of socialism.

You have a point, but if you're bringing it up to favor one of the two major American political parties, it loses it's meaning. By that measurement, everyone's a socialist.

stealing land from the indians

Alright, I'm getting pretty confused. I have a few questions:

That's the thing. I'm not bringing it up to favor either of the two "major" political parties. You are exactly right. Everyone, who identifies themselves as Republican or Democrat, has socialist tendencies because they willingly place power in the government's hands to decide what's best for everyone. You have a few hundred people deciding what's best for over 300MM. America has been quasi-socialist for a long time, and it's only getting worse. The Federal Goverment is the most inefficient user of resources in America. Government is the only monopoly. Neither "major" party will change this.